Selection procedure assessment table

Table 1.8 Diversity assessment using a modified MaxD subset selection procedure...

The procedure and results of this selection procedure are documented in Berner (1994) a simplified overview of the main considerations involved in the selection of solubility limits for specific elements is given in Table 3 and the resultant limits for the safety assessment are listed in Table 4. 

Obviously not all the parameters described above need to be evaluated for each scenario. In this context, the criticality classes are a useful tool in that they help in selecting the required data for the assessment of severity and probability (see Section 3.3.6). The criticality classes also give backbone to the systematic design procedure (Table 10.3). The procedure to follow for this assessment is presented below for each criticality class. 

The first line of Table 10.5 indicates short-term repeatability. The second line indicates the reproducibility of the calibration procedure, based on six recalibrations over a 10-day period. Long-term drift is indicated by the third line, over a period of time selected by the user, with recalibration. These results may be used to verify specifications claimed by the manufacturer and to provide a baseline for future measurements. Table 10.5 provides an assessment of the Raman shift accuracy of a particular instrument, obtained using samples and procedures that should be similar to the intended application. 

The standard includes procedures for dealing with software that contributes to risks in a system. There are tables for assessing software criticality. The standard also lists tasks used selectively in specific system safety projects. Each task identifies its purpose, description, and details. 

The LCA analysis first performs an inventory analysis that involves data collection and calculation procedures to quantify relevant inputs and outputs of the entire system defined within the system boundaries. This inventory is followed by an environmental impact assessment, which quantifies and categorises the inventory analysis results into environmental impacts. For demonstration purposes. Table 1 shows a list of the inventory emissions to air and the impact analysis of these emissions. The impact analysis step converts the inventory results into equivalents of a selected reference substance for each impact category such as emitting 1kg of methane is equivalent to 11kg of CO2 for global warming potential and 1kg of HF is equivalent to 1.6kg of SO2 for acidification. 

As follows from Table 13.4, in all cases the value which characterizes the external predictive performance, is lower than the value q computed using the internal cross-validation. This means that the use of only two adjustable hyperparameters may cause the model selection bias . Almost in all cases the value q lies between and q. It is interesting to note that q for CMF models are usually higher than for CoMFA and CoMSIA models. The predictive performance assessed using the external 5-fold cross-validation procedure is especially high for ACE, DHFR and THR. 

The outcomes of the hazards analyses and risk assessment are the basis for a company s management in a decision-making process of selecting effective methods and procedures to reduce risk. Both lifting machine manufacturers and users may contribute to risk reduction (see Table 4.5). 

According to the procedures followed for hazard evaluation, and in agreement with the design classification, the codes (standards) to be applied for design and re-evaluation can be selected in accordance with Tables 6 and 10. It has to be noted that the recommendations in Table 10 should be assessed against the values in Table 6. 

---